Luke Tryl
@luketryl.bsky.social
Lover of finding out what people think. Director @moreincommonuk.bsky.social
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/
Reposted by Luke Tryl
Yes the idea you can get away with just tossing aside an explicit pledge without a major material change of circs that all voters can see, was always a bubble opinion. However bad it looks now, that would have been irrecoverable
November 14, 2025 at 12:31 PM
Yes the idea you can get away with just tossing aside an explicit pledge without a major material change of circs that all voters can see, was always a bubble opinion. However bad it looks now, that would have been irrecoverable
2) I 100% agree with Steve on robust support for sin/not paying their fair share taxes. But on central pledge I think even if in trade off people pick services and public realm over breach the consequences of doing so are dire and people assume there is another way (because they were told that!)
November 14, 2025 at 11:30 AM
2) I 100% agree with Steve on robust support for sin/not paying their fair share taxes. But on central pledge I think even if in trade off people pick services and public realm over breach the consequences of doing so are dire and people assume there is another way (because they were told that!)
Couple of things! I think is really ace research. But 1) Steve’s argument here is particularly Labour voters, I think trust implications go wider than just vote (eg as long term consequences of macron strategy shows) and also one party, so we’re slightly talking about different
November 14, 2025 at 11:27 AM
Couple of things! I think is really ace research. But 1) Steve’s argument here is particularly Labour voters, I think trust implications go wider than just vote (eg as long term consequences of macron strategy shows) and also one party, so we’re slightly talking about different
I think 2 things! One trust doesn’t just apply to people who voted Labour. 2) I think even for Labour voters change was what drove their vote, but the pledge meant they were told it was change without need for tax rises, so there was never a debate about them and trade offs, that’s why it’s central
November 14, 2025 at 11:21 AM
I think 2 things! One trust doesn’t just apply to people who voted Labour. 2) I think even for Labour voters change was what drove their vote, but the pledge meant they were told it was change without need for tax rises, so there was never a debate about them and trade offs, that’s why it’s central
Don’t disagree on lots to make people
Unhappy. 1. I think it’s possible to both say lots of stuff in this budget will make people unhappy, but breaking the pledge would have a specific impact on trust. 2. Is that right ircc people didn’t like the NI and farmers stuff pretty quickly in focus groups?
Unhappy. 1. I think it’s possible to both say lots of stuff in this budget will make people unhappy, but breaking the pledge would have a specific impact on trust. 2. Is that right ircc people didn’t like the NI and farmers stuff pretty quickly in focus groups?
November 14, 2025 at 10:58 AM
Don’t disagree on lots to make people
Unhappy. 1. I think it’s possible to both say lots of stuff in this budget will make people unhappy, but breaking the pledge would have a specific impact on trust. 2. Is that right ircc people didn’t like the NI and farmers stuff pretty quickly in focus groups?
Unhappy. 1. I think it’s possible to both say lots of stuff in this budget will make people unhappy, but breaking the pledge would have a specific impact on trust. 2. Is that right ircc people didn’t like the NI and farmers stuff pretty quickly in focus groups?
Does that Q distinguish between higher taxes, and higher personal taxes in the big 3. I think pledge was made on one (I won’t pay more tax) not the other (not least as labour pledged some small tax rises, and lots of people were up for higher business taxes)
November 14, 2025 at 10:52 AM
Does that Q distinguish between higher taxes, and higher personal taxes in the big 3. I think pledge was made on one (I won’t pay more tax) not the other (not least as labour pledged some small tax rises, and lots of people were up for higher business taxes)
That’s why it was central. Again my personal view from the research was Labour could have won that debate, and had a mandate for some tax increases to do what people elect Labour govts to do.
November 14, 2025 at 10:41 AM
That’s why it was central. Again my personal view from the research was Labour could have won that debate, and had a mandate for some tax increases to do what people elect Labour govts to do.
So yes people voted Labour for change, better services. But the pledge took away the chance for debate against the Tories in an election about whether tax rises to fund them were necessary/right and get public backing. It took it off the table and told people it wasn’t necessary to make that choice.
November 14, 2025 at 10:41 AM
So yes people voted Labour for change, better services. But the pledge took away the chance for debate against the Tories in an election about whether tax rises to fund them were necessary/right and get public backing. It took it off the table and told people it wasn’t necessary to make that choice.
I agree and that should have happened in an election! And the public could have been convinced. The issue isn’t raising taxes, it’s putting a pledge not to do at the heart of your economic promise to the public.
November 14, 2025 at 10:29 AM
I agree and that should have happened in an election! And the public could have been convinced. The issue isn’t raising taxes, it’s putting a pledge not to do at the heart of your economic promise to the public.
Instead they didn’t have a debate with the Tories about need for tax (other keeping their promise) they said it could be done without, in doing so they framed their economic argument around no taxes. No way that wouldn’t have consequences for trust and make entire terms of debate seem a sham
November 14, 2025 at 10:27 AM
Instead they didn’t have a debate with the Tories about need for tax (other keeping their promise) they said it could be done without, in doing so they framed their economic argument around no taxes. No way that wouldn’t have consequences for trust and make entire terms of debate seem a sham
It was by far the clearest specific pledge, repeated in the debates. And what it did was take tax off the electoral battle field. So I agree Labour could/should have been willing to have a debate about the need to raise money to do those things and have a contest on it, and won but they didn’t.
November 14, 2025 at 10:27 AM
It was by far the clearest specific pledge, repeated in the debates. And what it did was take tax off the electoral battle field. So I agree Labour could/should have been willing to have a debate about the need to raise money to do those things and have a contest on it, and won but they didn’t.
In terms of issues absolutely you’re right. But the tax thing was the major promise people could remember. And it took tax sort of off the table?
November 14, 2025 at 10:07 AM
In terms of issues absolutely you’re right. But the tax thing was the major promise people could remember. And it took tax sort of off the table?
That I spend my job actually speaking to the public might be it?
November 14, 2025 at 10:01 AM
That I spend my job actually speaking to the public might be it?
Well quite! Which is why they should have said it in the election, and they’d still have won.
November 14, 2025 at 9:59 AM
Well quite! Which is why they should have said it in the election, and they’d still have won.
Which is why they could have got away with saying they would reverse the hunt ni cuts before the election and still won. But in making the pledge, reiterating eg in the debates it became a defining part of the manifesto/their framing of the election.
November 14, 2025 at 9:43 AM
Which is why they could have got away with saying they would reverse the hunt ni cuts before the election and still won. But in making the pledge, reiterating eg in the debates it became a defining part of the manifesto/their framing of the election.
Which is why I said they could have got away with reversing the hunt NI cuts, it’s not what won it, I know from chatting to lots of voters in the run up to the election. But it was then a central defining promise.
November 14, 2025 at 9:41 AM
Which is why I said they could have got away with reversing the hunt NI cuts, it’s not what won it, I know from chatting to lots of voters in the run up to the election. But it was then a central defining promise.
I think not raising the big 3 was so defining to their economic offer that it makes it unique (obviously if they did something like privatise the nhs that would be worse!)
November 14, 2025 at 9:35 AM
I think not raising the big 3 was so defining to their economic offer that it makes it unique (obviously if they did something like privatise the nhs that would be worse!)
This is not about tax (I remain convinced Labour could have pledged to reverse hunts NI rises and still won comfortably). But breaking a pledge which was so central to labours offer at a time when trust already fragile, and the public won’t buy circs have changed (this isn’t like the pandemic).
November 14, 2025 at 9:25 AM
This is not about tax (I remain convinced Labour could have pledged to reverse hunts NI rises and still won comfortably). But breaking a pledge which was so central to labours offer at a time when trust already fragile, and the public won’t buy circs have changed (this isn’t like the pandemic).
Suggest you don’t follow me then :)
November 13, 2025 at 6:26 PM
Suggest you don’t follow me then :)